Friday, February 01, 2013

Curt Shilling, a former pitcher with a career in baseball spanning 20-years, said in a series of tweets, that he did not understand why there was such an issue in professional sports with players coming out.

He also said that he had played alongside gay players, and that it did not matter, and that their performance on the pitch was the important issue.

Mr Shilling said: “I’ve never understood this ‘issue’ with gay players? Who cares? I know I played with some, their sexual orientation never had much to …To do with how they hit with RISP, or pitched in late and close situations, why the hell would what they do in the bedroom ever matter?”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Wow, I think this is actual new ground in BBTF OT discussions, at least to this depth.

I think Sam/McCoy/DJS [SMD) _logic_ is unassailable BUT it makes a critical assumption of what the "Default state of implied consent" is.
Not necessarily a wrong assumption - but an assumption nonetheless.

As an analogy - consider marriage & divorce. This law varies by state but typically the ex-spouse with the higher income is obligated to send money to the other party. I am pretty sure that this is not written on the marriage license you sign in city hall.

So - under the SMD paradigm the implicit contract is:
- Should babby get made in our act(s), then we agree to terminate pregnancy or man is under no obligation for child support.

as comparison to the current:

- Should babby get made in our act(s), the woman gets choice of termination or permanent child support.

If you want a different contract, you should get it in writing. A pre-cop, so to speak. Now perhaps according to current state laws such a contract would be non-binding if the man tried to dodge his child support -- if so then I would agree that the law should change.

And should probably also change to explicitly state what the default implied sexbabby contract is.

I think Sam/McCoy/DJS [SMD) _logic_ is unassailable BUT it makes a critical assumption of what the "Default state of implied consent" is.
Not necessarily a wrong assumption - but an assumption nonetheless.

Every argument, on some level, requires some level of assumption!

I think what makes this argument particularly interesting is that this conversation really mixes up the "teams" somewhat, so we have new arguments.

The weirdest thing is that I don't talk politics *anywhere* other than these threads, really. Not on facebook, Twitter, chats, in writing. If someone asks me a particular question, I'll usually try to avoid it elsewhere.

Yes, but where? What's justifiable to assume today may not be so tomorrow. You rely on assumptions always only provisionally and you do so as if they are always under challenge. For they are--or should be. Moreover, you can't assume all assumptions are equal. Placing that constraint on assumptions, and requiring others to do the same, is important if one is to stay honest in debate. It isn't a get out of jail card. Too many ratchet an assumption to an axiom rather than question the assumption.

#320 I don't see child support as punitive and frankly don't see any logic behind that view. I'll go further and say that you're arguing for punishing a decision to carry to term without a father. And that you're making the kid fell the weight of this.

Is it inequitable to deny the man any say (either way -- he also doesn't get to say that he's willing to take full custody and bear all costs and thus compel the woman to carry to term) in the decision to carry to term? Yeah. But once the decision has been made. you've got a kid and his interests count too.

It's interesting to see so many people nostalgic for the early 70s. Not in law but in practice. The government did not expend many resources chasing down dads who didn't pay child support; it provided a lot of support to single moms from high levels of tax revenues. While dads men who impregnated women with resources were out of luck, since those women got good lawyers, lots of men lived practically in the regime suggested here. That has seemed impractical to me for many reasons, but if you could really get so many people with otherwise conservative-leaning views to come out strongly in favor of expanding AFDC on these grounds, maybe it would possible.

As an analogy - consider marriage & divorce. This law varies by state but typically the ex-spouse with the higher income is obligated to send money to the other party. I am pretty sure that this is not written on the marriage license you sign in city hall.

The problem here is the comparison of sex to marriage. Marriage is, as you note, a contract with social implications outside of the singular act of standing at the alter/JoP and saying "I do." Sex is not that sort of thing. Not any more. Sex is just a more intense form of dancing at this point. You don't sign a contract to dance, and you don't expect to divest yourself of 20% of your future earnings for a simple round of bounce and shake after the after-party.

Of note: none of this discussion is really relevant to traditionally operative courtship/marriage relationships. We're not talking about those. We're talking about the social rubric of sexual liberation.

Why don't sperm donors, who contribute their DNA to the making of a child, have the obligation to pay child support?

If the answer is that they can contract that obligation away as a condition to donating their sperm, the guy who donates his sperm through sexual intercourse should be able to do precisely the same thing. You could even have a standard pre-f$ck agreement, in which the woman consents to sexual intercourse and waives her right to child support should she take a pregnancy to term as a result thereof.

The only reason not to permit such a contract in this context, but allow it in sperm donation, is to punish the "sin" of the person who provides DNA by busting a nut inside the woman. That can't be right.

and you don't expect to divest yourself of 20% of your future earnings for a simple round of bounce and shake after the after-party.

Whatever "right" is, the current legal situation is that you should assume this risk for a round of bounce and shake. As I say, it may or may not be right, but it IS. So, saying you shouldn't expect that divestiture is not supporting your argument. You have made good points that having to do so is a violation of your rights (not that I'm fully persuaded), but arguments about what you do and don't expect are irrelevant. You're arguing for changing the law. But the law as it stands says that every male who has vaginal intercourse should be aware of the risk that he will be legally liable for offspring should it result.

Sam, possibly joint decisions that may have long term physical, psychological, and/or financial consequences should be considered as contracts. It is like "dancing" -- dancing where if you have an equipment failure you end up in surgery or permanent "disability"

If I understand the issues--I probably don't!--a contract could be binding between a woman and a man, but not between the government and the man. If the woman made enough money to support the child, that's one case. But if the women receives government support for the child, then depending on the state, the state would go after the biological father. The woman cannot contract away the state's right to pursue the man for support if she relies upon the state.

So it's not solely an issue of punishment--though I don't doubt that's part of it.

Edited to add: This was in answer to 611.

States have also pursued sperm donors for that matter in some, usually, anomalous cases.

Furthermore, i think that the assymmetry (best typo ev ah) is due to the fact that, under current us social mores, the transaction (sexytime) is not quid pro quo. If it were, their would be a much more (hetero) ratio of male and female prostitutes.

Furthermore, i think that the assymmetry (best typo ev ah) is due to the fact that, under current us social mores, the transaction (sexytime) is not quid pro quo. If it were, their would be a much more (hetero) ratio of male and female prostitutes.

Well certainly not if you follow Vlad's suggestion of categorically denying woman vaginal intercourse, and making her service you in other ways.

You're arguing for changing the law. But the law as it stands says that every male who has vaginal intercourse should be aware of the risk that he will be legally liable for offspring should it result.

Oh sure. Absolutely. I am arguing ought, not is. The current system is unjust. It ought to be changed.

Sam, possibly joint decisions that may have long term physical, psychological, and/or financial consequences should be considered as contracts.

Sure. The extent of the implied consent contract of mutually agreed upon sex should be "if she gets pregnant, he has to help pay for termination, unless she opts to carry to term, at which point he either opts in (with some sort of legal visitation, custody, etc) or opts out (where he is not required to pay, in return for having no relationship with the child resulting from his unplanned DNA donation.)

The woman cannot contract away the state's right to pursue the man for support if she relies upon the state.

The state has the right to pass universal, non-discriminatory tax policies to support children. The state does not have the right to target individuals to fund state-supported child services, just because that guy had sex with a future mom.

The state has the right to pass universal, non-discriminatory tax policies to support children. The state does not have the right to target individuals to fund state-supported child services, just because that guy had sex with a future mom.

So the biological father isn't responsible but I am? How is that just?

Vaguely related, since this is an issue I feel strongly about, I've been thinking awhile about trying to hook up with a fathers' rights organization to do some pro bono work. Did you know that, as far as I can tell with 30 minutes of googling and emailing my firm's pro bono coordinator, no such group exists in NYC? I find that stunning and appalling.

So the biological father isn't responsible but I am? How is that just?

This is where you recall that when Dan and Ray run down the 'taxation is slavery' angle, I'm on the other side. If society wishes to impose a child services support system funded from the common treasury, you, me, Ray and Dan are all morally obliged to participate. That's what tax-funded systems do. I have to pay for your rehab, you have to pay for Ray's wars, and Ray has to pay for my unwanted children. Welcome to the tragedy of the commons, baby.

Outside of social support programs, it is unjust to ask someone with no agency in a decision to pay the costs of that decision for his entire life.

Vaguely related, since this is an issue I feel strongly about, I've been thinking awhile about trying to hook up with a fathers' rights organization to do some pro bono work. Did you know that, as far as I can tell with 30 minutes of googling and emailing my firm's pro bono coordinator, no such group exists in NYC? I find that stunning and appalling.

I don't disagree with you. Men who WANT to be active fathers are disadvantaged if they don't have a good relationship with the mother of the children. That's a sympathetic position.

The pro-abortion, Roger Sterling as victim crowd make me ashamed of my own gender.

#626 I'll buy your argument as a package deal. That is to say that if the child's needs are adequately met by society (hah! slut shaming will make this a political impossibility) I'll accept that a man can opt out. It's an essential pre-condition though.

#626 I'll buy your argument as a package deal. That is to say that if the child's needs are adequately met by society (hah! slut shaming will make this a political impossibility) I'll accept that a man can opt out. It's an essential pre-condition though.

The difficult part of this is that it's hard to sustain politically. Right or wrong, more people get upset about paying for other people's kids than about the possibility of getting stuck paying for an unwanted child. Whether this is because men are careful or foolish, I'll leave to others to decide. But states only got serious about hunting down deadbeat dads after federal welfare reimbursements got squeezed, and they got squeezed because welfare moms are political poison, so even if you set up the system you probably couldn't sustain it.

But they wouldn't have to pay for as many if the woman couldn't take a pregnancy to term on someone else's dime.(*) That's the real problem.

Wasn't the perception in the 70s that women were allegedly having all these extra kids to get those sweet welfare benefits? I doubt the group of women having kids for financial gain is very high in either group, myself.

The difficult part of this is that it's hard to sustain politically. Right or wrong, more people get upset about paying for other people's kids than about the possibility of getting stuck paying for an unwanted child. Whether this is because men are careful or foolish, I'll leave to others to decide. But states only got serious about hunting down deadbeat dads after federal welfare reimbursements got squeezed, and they got squeezed because welfare moms are political poison, so even if you set up the system you probably couldn't sustain it.

It's also fair to speculate whether the people here stumping for this change actually care whether the kid is taken care of by society or not. In fact, prior behavior indicates they'd be the first in line for cutting the benefits and sending the kids to the poorhouse. It's the woman's problem, right? They already don't give a #### about their own progeny, why would they care about anyone else's?

Wasn't the perception in the 70s that women were allegedly having all these extra kids to get those sweet welfare benefits? I doubt the group of women having kids for financial gain is very high in either group, myself.

Empirical question.

The bigger problem is, as others have noted, that it distorts the incentives during the 3-4 month window in which the woman can choose whether or not to take the pregnancy to term.

I'll buy your argument as a package deal. That is to say that if the child's needs are adequately met by society (hah! slut shaming will make this a political impossibility) I'll accept that a man can opt out. It's an essential pre-condition though.

There are many real world problem to address before you have a just system, including revanchist and reactionary elements who will scream about the forward progress of history altogether. That's not an argument against just policy; it's an argument against reactionaries.

Wasn't the perception in the 70s that women were allegedly having all these extra kids to get those sweet welfare benefits? I doubt the group of women having kids for financial gain is very high in either group, myself.

While I find SBB's phrasing intentionally insulting - and I'm not above that occasionally myself, no - he has a valid point beneath the finger poke. If you change the assumptions of support and responsibility to mirror the modern assumptions of sex and sexual freedom for women, then you change the incentives for having children out of wedlock. (Note: the best of all possible worlds would be the movement to my position on the issues of parental responsibility coupled with publicly available (i.e. no-cost to the user) birth control and morning after pills. There's no reason we should hang on to the outmoded idea of procreative choice as requiring a trip to the abortion clinic when modern women across western civilization have access to abortifcants over the counter.)

It's also fair to speculate whether the people here stumping for this change actually care whether the kid is taken care of by society or not. In fact, prior behavior indicates they'd be the first in line for cutting the benefits and sending the kids to the poorhouse. It's the woman's problem, right? They already don't give a #### about their own progeny, why would they care about anyone else's?

Well, personally I would oppose cutting benefits for single parents. But I can only speak for myself, although I think Sam is also firmly in that camp.

I also never said that I wouldn't support my 'progeny' in such a situation. Only that I think that it is not right to force men to do so, in a situation where they have no rights, or choice. The person with the rights and the choice should bear the responsibility.

The person with the rights and the choice should bear the responsibility.

Correct. Choosing who and what gender to have sex with, choosing not to have sex with someone, forming a marital contract, the right of women and men to choose abortion, all of these rights go together for the same reasoning and tied under the same bundle. Untie the bow and try and take one out and the rest fall out, too. It's not about pro- or anti- men or women, it's about uniting free choices, rights, and responsibilities.

We can argue about the other stuff (benefits, etc), but this is a basic issue. It's about sexual freedom and the Puritans who seek to oppress it.

It's also fair to speculate whether the people here stumping for this change actually care whether the kid is taken care of by society or not. In fact, prior behavior indicates they'd be the first in line for cutting the benefits and sending the kids to the poorhouse.

I will assume you've never bothered to read my positions in the OTP threads with any rigor.

Because when a man decides to nail a random chick from a bar without bothering to put on a jimmy hat, that's the same thing as a woman being raped. Obviously.

No, jackass, but a man being forced to support a woman's child he *did not want to have* isn't so far removed from a woman being forced to have sex she *did not want to have* to make the response invalid. You're the one making the "it's their fault for being in the wrong place" argument.

I also never said that I wouldn't support my 'progeny' in such a situation. Only that I think that it is not right to force men to do so, in a situation where they have no rights, or choice. The person with the rights and the choice should bear the responsibility.

For the millionth time, you have the rights and responsibility when you have the penis-vaginal sex act. Don't engage in penis-vaginal sex, no kids to worry about.

You cannot force a woman to take a morning-after pill or abort. You already took the positive action of having sex with her. You are not faced with the responsibility of carrying a baby to term. If you drew up a contract beforehand you might have some plausibility, but that still doesn't answer the contract you have with the child. But I haven't seen any interest in contracts here, only using abortion as a get out of fatherhood free card.

And for the umpteenth time, repeating it over and over again doesn't make it not the exact same argument against abortion.

You cannot force a woman to take a morning-after pill or abort.

Who said anything about forcing her? Men and women, in a society that has sexual freedom, make their own choices. It's not my fault if you share, with Fred Phelps, an arbitrary cutting-off point at parts of sexual freedom you don't like.

And what's with all the "penis-in-vagina sex" and "penis-vaginal sex?" Those parse like something said by some creepy dude with an underground rape dungeon. I don't think it's quite necessary to explain which type of sex and distribution of participants results in pregnancy.

And what's with all the "penis-in-vagina sex" and "penis-vaginal sex?" Those parse like something said by some creepy dude with an underground rape dungeon. I don't think it's quite necessary to explain which type of sex and distribution of participants results in pregnancy.

i think it relates to the original choice of having vaginal sex (which may result in pregnancy) versus oral or anal sex, which if it resulted in pregnancy, would likely create a billion dollar industry.

And what's with all the "penis-in-vagina sex" and "penis-vaginal sex?" Those parse like something said by some creepy dude with an underground rape dungeon. I don't think it's quite necessary to explain which type of sex and distribution of participants results in pregnancy.

Yeah, the anti-sexual-freedomers continually repeating that phrase is the most bizarre part of this thread.

And she took the positive action of having "vagina-penis" sex with the man. What does that prove?

Are you guys arguing that women don't get pleasure from sex? That's the only thing that makes your ideas make any sense. Subconsciously, it seems like you're saying, "Men get pleasure from sex, so they should have to pay if pregnancy results."

This is quite the pity party. I'm glad SBB has come on over to the alliance.

Do you have any counterargument to make aside from empty snark? At least Vlad is trying. He's doing a #### job of it, basically repeating ad nauseum "but you put your pee pee in her hoohaw, you get what she says you get!" as if that's going to magically become a cogent or compelling argument this final time. But to date you're not even doing that. You seem to be of the opinion that a long history of sexual repression against women means any argument for equality and just consideration of rights and responsibilities for me is necessarily wrong by default. That isn't a particularly strong position to take, if I may suggest as much.

Sam (ahem), fine arguments have been made already by others and the response - to everyone from everyone, including you, has basically been what you've already shown, and to repeat, ad nauseum: "He's doing a #### job of it"

But what the heck, I'll give a greater position a shot so you can all pile on similarly.

You seem to be of the opinion that a long history of sexual repression against women means any argument for equality and just consideration of rights and responsibilities for me is necessarily wrong by default.

This is a common and I have to say rather boring tactic. "Any argument..." No, not any argument. This argument. This child support argument. The argument that back three pages ago was staked out with a rather shrill "Welcome to the consequences of sexual liberation", followed up with HA HA, ROE, BITCHES, wafted disturbingly through money equaling bodily autonomy, and then finally settling on "injustice" like Gandalf planting his staff in the ground.

You never answered my question about how moral reasoning works the way you say and not the way I say. I ducked you last time, but I won't this time. I do think men should take a look at how it's been forever and ever and stop crying like babies about having to take some responsibility for once. I'd say that centuries of sexual oppression doesn't excuse indiscriminate female rape or death or beating of men, a light-switch gender gap pay reversal, or even men being implanted with fear chips for walking alone. I will say that yes, this current imbalance to me seems just about right, and I don't find that any weaker than your attempt to make Roe a logic-puzzle gotcha. I don't even find it an imbalance, taken holistically.

Having to go so far as to bring up this imbalance in comparison to rape and Seneca Falls just highlights how weak your position is to me. As was already alluded to, or said, I can't remember, child support is the compromise, it is the weakest amount of crap anyone could possibly be involved in, and it's STILL such an imposition that you and your allies have to stake out shaky ground like "women sabotage condoms", "women control the sexual gateway", and, god help you, "the rubric of sexual liberation" (Brought up twice! With the same lemon-face with which people use the word "feminist".) in which you finally sound like snapper.

I have an idea how the responses to this are going to go, not logical, not right, not justice, ("whimsical" - oy) not fair, two wrongs are no right, oho you don't respect women and whatever. But between Bitter Mouse's attention to the child and my overall calculus I have no problem with no philosophical discord regarding the child support issue. I find your positions and the logic therein to be wholly subjective, and easily as much as what I'm sure you'll claim what I just said is.

Lastly, does anyone, anywhere at all have any actual figures how things would work out or break down percentage-wise if all y'all got your way? I've seen nothing cited for the horror you all seem to be expressing as far as who all and how much is being taken from the lives of unsuspecting pickup artists. Even if it's crap I disagree with, I'd be curious what is stated. Is there a figure for the amount of men paying child support on kids they would have sooner ignored? If they actually would have ignored them?

And she took the positive action of having "vagina-penis" sex with the man. What does that prove?

Are you guys arguing that women don't get pleasure from sex? That's the only thing that makes your ideas make any sense. Subconsciously, it seems like you're saying, "Men get pleasure from sex, so they should have to pay if pregnancy results."

I don't care who got pleasure from sex. There are many pleasurable sex acts that have no chance of producing a baby, a point that has been made many times. With the right person, all sex acts have no chance of producing a baby.

As far as the whole abortion thing goes, let's consider a surrogacy situation. Bio mom has eggs but can't carry a child, so they find another woman to carry the baby to term. Now what are the rights and responsibilities of both women? Can the surrogate get an abortion? It seems like she could, if there were any health questions in her mind. Now she could have just changed her mind, but I don't know that you can legally prevent her from getting an abortion in any case. You could put something in her contract about the financial repercussions, I suppose. Surrogate is also morally responsible for raising the baby in good health and not drinking or smoking during pregnancy. Bio mom is not carrying the child and no longer has these restrictions, just like the dad.

Suppose the bio mom and dad split up and decide they no longer want the child. Can they require the surrogate to get an abortion? Don't know the law, but it doesn't seem like they should be able to. How can you force a third party to undergo a medical procedure? And maybe the surrogate just wants to get paid, but it really doesn't make any difference.

So at this point both the bio mom and the dad are on the hook for the custody of the kid. Now if they both don't want the kid, the kid can simply be put up for adoption, so again it doesn't seem like there's any reason to preserve an abortion option. If they both want out, they can both get out.

Now what happens if one parent wants the child and the other doesn't? Then probably the one who wants the child should get custody and the other one still is on the hook for support. It doesn't matter which. In this case the bio mom and dad are equivalent.

Of course surrogacy is the exception. The real life problem is the woman is performing the dual roles of half provider of genetic material and future half custodian, and carrier of the baby to term. The roles can be split, but they usually aren't, which creates conflict of interest issues that can't be resolved. But again, as I have stated before, any sane man knows the bargain he is entering into and is performing his positive action of his own free will. I'm unsympathetic.

But again, as I have stated before, any sane man knows the bargain he is entering into and is performing his positive action of his own free will. I'm unsympathetic.

I wish I had said this instead of my own ramble. Ah well.

Why? This says nothing at all. It can be used to justify just about anything -- including the very position that is opposite to the one that you hold. "Any sane woman knows the bargain she is entering into... I'm unsympathetic."

How is it possible that a class that is intrinsically equal could be oppressed after, oh, about 75,000 years? How did this happen? How did it continue for so long? What's the problem?

If females are a disadvantaged class, is it only in some ways, or is it in all ways, or are we just making a general overall assessment? What exactly is meant when we say they are disadvantaged or oppressed? Is it something that is correctable without any serious downside to it?

Women live longer than men? And not just by one or two years. Is that how you would think it would be wrt to an oppressor class and an oppressed class?

According to Randolph Nesse, doctor of evolutionary medicine, of the top 20 indicators of mortality, males lead in 19 of them. Why is that? Is that how it is with the oppressed?

Who got Social Security/Medicare benefits for decades without have put anything into the system—women or men?

Who gets most of the public funds for health, education, welfare—women or men?

Who has the legal system supporting them in any gender v. gender situation—women or men? In both civil and criminal matters—women or men?

Who suffers violence most—men or women? (Even here, most violence men commit is against other men; most violence women commit is against men.) Males are even probably the victims of rape in greater numbers, if the prison population is counted.

Who does most all the risky jobs?

Women generally live longer and better than men. Period.

All laws with regard to gender are in women's favor. The legal system cuts them slack. Family law, divorce law, child custody law, alimony (often disguised child support), civil law and criminal law. The system is more on their side.

Women get more lenient sentences for the same crime (moreover, this doesn't take into account that charges are more readily reduced for them), and if a crime is committed with a man, the woman is also the subordinate criminal, the one who was been led astray.

Women are almost always the impinged upon aid and abettor, never the principal in a criminal situation involving a man a woman. Why is that? Is it just an assumption that has outlived its warrant? Or is it that there is an advantage to being, or seeming to be, the passive participant?

Not long ago day at my health club, a woman exited the woman’s wet area nude after whirlpooling, steambathing, and saunaing to a froth, ran a few steps, dove into the outdoor swimming pool, swam a lap, and scurried back into the women’s locker facilities. It was all very fast. And it was all like a joke. The owner “talked” to her about it. In recounting it, he shrugged, just commented fatalistically: “She don’t know no better.” Had it been a man...?

If the crime is a she said/he said--well, see the Innocence Project.

I, as many men before me, at certain stage of my life, lived in fear of the military draft. I still have my draft card. Know any women who do?

(Did you know that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the military draft can be reinstated, and it is, it can be reinstated so as to only apply to males.

Life's hard for all, but it's harder for men. This goes back forever. Women in the ancestral environment were the spoils of wars between contentious tribes and bands. That, I'm sure, is horrible. But, consider:

Know what was done to the men who lost battles and wars in tribal times? Their bones were ground to fertilize the fields of their captors.

Ever see those film clips of men during the Great Depression catching freight trains in flocks. Why aren’t there any women jumping those trains?

Who dominates the homeless class?

Women as a gender get most of the public funding for health, education, what have you, and all of the respect, whether it's just plain old welfare/foodstamps/medicaid or whether it's public funding for medical research or just educational scholarships/grants/loans.

Men live shorter lives, do riskier jobs.

The idea that woman is an oppressed class doesn’t pass the giggle test. How can the oppressed have it better than the oppressors?

Not if we see each sex’s predicament as a whole.

There was a clip on CNN a few years ago about old women in nursing homes, and how horrible it was for them that they had so few male contemporaries. What was CNN's solution? Was the solution to maybe work at getting men to live longer? Uh, uh, it was about getting more revenue for bingo cards and things like that to take the poor things' minds off it. That’s what society thinks of mere. You are valued as mere nonce fodder. Insulators, protectors, and subsidizers of women.

I have no doubt women get the short end of the stick in some ways. But men get shafted in many more ways. And in more vital ways. Just because there are millionaire and billionaire males engaging what amounts to as harem promotion and serial monogamy doesn’t nullify, or shouldn’t nullify, that most all men are just drudges.

If we’re going to revise things, let’s put it all on the table. Let's have a wholesale revamping. That's a dare.

At the very least, let's have some reciprocity. There hasn't been any in a long time. It's time to start considering this stuff seriously.

The brainwashing should be resisted.

If women want to be treated as truly equal, whatever that means, that’s one thing. That has benefits and burdens. But let’s cut out the delusion that fosters the nickeling and diming through a series of never-ending gimmes that are always in the favor of that one sex. I mean, if this is to be about fairness and equality. Whacking Day, like Confederate Day, should not be a national holiday.

Poor men! They suffer so, so, so very much. Equality means that women somehow have to die younger (or something) or be in more wars (working on that!) or not be abandoned to raise children on their own as much (I guess we want a world of more deadbeat mothers?).

Besides all this lovely posturing about how terrible it is that men have to pay child support at all (as if there is a child support fairy that shows up after nine months of pregnancy, instead of a long, annoying process that often leaves mothers unpaid for years), let's insert some actual fact into the discussion:

82% of primary custodians are women. 1 in 4 children are born today to single mothers. In some communities, that number is almost two in three. That's a lot of poor, beknighted men, selflessly having responsible sexual relationships but being kept down by the evil childcare gestapo.

Also, the most galling discussion in this thread is about how "easy" abortion is, like it's some sort of "get out jail free card" that ladies get to pull for some of that sexy liberation. You know what's liberating? Not having to spend a few hundred dollars to terminate a pregnancy. Never getting pregnant is liberating. An abortion isn't "liberating". It is a CHOICE. And it's one that isn't really as easy to get as men here are making it sound (surprise, surprise). We have a whole group of people who want to make the preventative part (birth control) hard to get, let alone abortion on demand! Women's health is being decimated in many places, and even NY still has abortion in its penal code (there's a joke somewhere in there). This thread is like the diametric opposite of "pro-life" conversations: forced abortions for everybody! Oh, no, not forced, we'll just put an economic trigger to the little lady's head and she'll realize what the right choice is. The choice that I'd prefer. And if she doesn't want to make the choice I'd make? Then she had it coming.

There are a lot of problems with how child support is structured. There are problems with men who are trapped into financial arrangements for a quarter century. But having a kid and raising alone is not a joyride. I feel like this discussion has decided that being a single mom is really ####### awesome, and there are these poor saps out there who are subsidizing this awesome lifestyle of ladies just having all the awesome babies and extorting champagne and bonbons from men who were going to live lives of leisure if only she hadn't poked holes in the condom. The real situation is that having a child is a huge responsibility; it costs a #######, and it's not always easy to terminate a pregnancy. And let's not even get into the approximately 30,000 rape pregnancies that happen each year. The idea that even one sick ###### could go around using rape that leaves no marks and little evidence, and then walk away from the pregnancy because Freedom! is unbelievably awful. And the worst part is that it could absolutely happen.

Let's deal with the actual problems on the table, which are: no significant amount of entrapment; a lack of real reproductive choice for millions of women; a family law system biased against men; a social insurance society that allows 1 in 5 children to go hungry every day; 11% of deadbeats (male and female) being responsible for 54% of outstanding payments, and an education system that doesn't do enough to promote healthy sexual interactions and understanding.

Also, the next person to equate rape to paying a check: I will find you and it will not be pretty. It is so incredibly insulting to read the word casually thrown around, like having your body violated in such a deep and personal way, having someone use you sexually without your consent is the equivalent to skinning a knee. I understand that men do not fear sexual violence the same way, but please, for the love of decency, try to have some empathy.

This thread is like the diametric opposite of "pro-life" conversations: forced abortions for everybody! Oh, no, not forced, we'll just put an economic trigger to the little lady's head and she'll realize what the right choice is. The choice that I'd prefer. And if she doesn't want to make the choice I'd make? Then she had it coming.

This post is almost entirely nonresponsive, except for this little nugget. And even here, the main thrust of the argument is missed. Why should a man not have the right to "choose" an abortion, at his cost? The only answer can be, because a woman has autonomy to choose what happens to her person; i.e., the intrusion of a pregnancy OR an abortion is so great that it trumps all other concerns.

Which is fine. But has been repeated countless times above, granting that a woman should have ultimate, sole discretion veto over whether to have an abortion or not, why shouldn't a man have an equal right to decide whether or not he wants to bear the burden of raising a child?

Let's leave theory. All this arguing is about theory and analogies. Let's deal with reality. Once a pregnancy occurs, how do the parties responsible (man and woman) deal with it? Unfortunately, 100% of the physical burden is on her. There's no way to split the responsibility. Can he pressure her? Sure. Can he drag her kicking and screaming to the clinic? Of course. But in the end, even though she's got this entire physical burden, it seems absurd to say: this is a binary. Because you are a womb-haver, 100% of all responsibility (fiscal, emotional, physical) is on you. I never signed up for this, and luckily, I was born without a uterus, so I'll see you never and good luck catching up to me. But it also seems absurd to have men take on this burden when they didn't agree to it.

Women have a choice as to whether to carry out a pregnancy.* Men then have to take on as much as they can to prevent it if they don't want one to occur. That's the horrible truth, but women are getting as much out of their reproductive choices here as they can. (It's a really terrible choice, speaking personally.) In the end, it's possible to walk away (that massive amount of unpaid child support says as much), but what everyone can do is not get there to begin with. Men can only control what they can control; same with women.

Men who pay child support and only that aren't bearing the burden of raising a child. Raising a child is not just money. In the end, they will pay for the choices they made reproductively, either directly or through sky high taxes. That's the only way this can end. Even if we diffuse it through society, men are going to have to pay a hell of a lot more to leave children to women. Men get to make an absolute decision not to have children. It just happens a lot earlier (and a lot cheaper) than when women do.

*Subject to change depending on how long she's been pregnant, where she lives, how much money she has and whether she can find the time.

Men who pay child support and only that aren't bearing the burden of raising a child. Raising a child is not just money. In the end, they will pay for the choices they made reproductively, either directly or through sky high taxes. That's the only way this can end. Even if we diffuse it through society, men are going to have to pay a hell of a lot more to leave children to women. Men get to make an absolute decision not to have children. It just happens a lot earlier (and a lot cheaper) than when women do.

My experience here differs from yours. I see a family law system that is rigged to prevent men from contributing in non-monetary ways to the burden of raising a child. Men who, despite having to provide monetarily for a child, have no meaningful contribution to the raising of the child. I'm not trivializing the vast distinction between the physical intrusion of forced abortion or pregnancy and 18 years of garnished wages; but its also wrong to, as many posters upthread do, handwave away the burden imposed on men by compelling them to provide, in a limited and inflexible way, for a child, without allowing them to reap many of the rewards of child-rearing.

Men don't need to pay for children directly or through sky-high taxes. They could also be given the opportunity, through a just and unbiased legal system, to contribute to the raising of a child in what are traditionally (and inexplicably, to this day, by the legal system ) thought of as the "women's roles". I do think its fair to equate the emotional burden of having a child who you have minimal contact with, who is raised with values you don't agree with, who may even be trained to hate you, and whom you need to send your 17%, month after month, with the most heinous of emotional traumas.

I'm trying to stay out of this talk, as I'm pretty sure I'd do little more than vent bile (and I am unaccustomed to these feelings, frankly), spray venom and be non-productive, but...
DevilInABlueCap, please post more often. And not just in this he-man woman-hater's ######## thread.

And this is the argument, isn't it? Reparations. Women suffered relative to men in this country's history, and so now we'll make men who had nothing to do with that suffering make reparations to women who didn't suffer. The reparations here are in the form of ceding all power to the woman, and thus the man's money if the woman makes the choice that requires the man's funding; the woman gets to make the choice, not the man, and the man gets to open up his wallet and pay her.

Men who pay child support and only that aren't bearing the burden of raising a child. Raising a child is not just money.

Well nobody is disagreeing with this. The issue is, if a woman doesn't like the burden of actually raising a child, she can chose to terminate, or offer the child for adoption. Men have no such choice. That's the whole crux of the argument, choice and responsibility have to be inextricably linked, anything else is categorically unfair.

And I disagree that the costs would result in "sky high taxes". We are not talking about every child born in this discussion. Unwanted pregnancies, outside of a committed relationship, by mothers* who can't afford to raise a child on their own, with fathers who choose not to have any responsibility, and knowing this opt not to have an abortion. That's a fairly small subset.

* Can someone on the "poor men" side please detail out what they want, the full structure that makes it fair for all parties involved (Mother, Father, Child, taxpayers)? The reason I ask is the poor men keep arguing rights and theories, and when oppossed keep talking about how unfair the real world is. They get to argue their "perfect" theory and are only willing to argue against current imperfect reality.

* I assume all you "poor men" also that woman deserve more say and more than equal custody of a child, he only contributes sperm, while woman have to go through pregnancy, childbirth, and suffer physical changes to their body. The cost to the woman is much higher and you all support her having more rights than the father, correct? It is only fair, because even if both sides are in agreement she has much more "cost" than he does.

* And still the "poor men" avoid talking about what is best for the child (or occasionally promote freeloading behavior, where the men skate and everyone else pays).

The state has the right to pass universal, non-discriminatory tax policies to support children. The state does not have the right to target individuals to fund state-supported child services, just because that guy had sex with a future mom.

* This is just a silly thing to say, for many reasons. What are "non-discriminatory" taxes? Is a progressive tax system non-discriminatory? A system that taxes some income differently than others (normal income, capital gainss, dividends, and so on)? A tax system that gives credits for things like having children (discriminates against many non-breeders) is somehow non-discriminatory? Off course the state has the right to ask those who caused the child to come into being to help support it, virtually every society in history has done this, but now Sam has decided they are all illegitimate because he wants to have monkey sex and still be "post-mammal".

* Can someone on the "poor men" side please detail out what they want, the full structure that makes it fair for all parties involved (Mother, Father, Child, taxpayers)? The reason I ask is the poor men keep arguing rights and theories, and when oppossed keep talking about how unfair the real world is. They get to argue their "perfect" theory and are only willing to argue against current imperfect reality.

Somebody laid out a fairly decent proposal pages ago. But anyway, my 'perfect' system would be:

If a woman gets pregnant outside of a committed relationship, she can decide if she would like to terminate or bring the foetus to term. If she doesn't terminate, she must inform prospective father. Man has a reasonable period (say 1 week) to decide to opt out after notification (obviously would require notification at least 1 week before viability kicks in). If he does so, he has to cover costs and expenses if an abortion takes place, or forfeits any future rights (custody, visitation etc) should the woman decide to go ahead with the pregnancy. If the woman chooses to go ahead with the pregnancy, she is eligible for the same benefits as single parents, with no access to support from a second parent.

This is just a silly thing to say, for many reasons. What are "non-discriminatory" taxes? Is a progressive tax system non-discriminatory?

Non-discriminatory is fairly simple. You can't tax people based on demographics or life choices. You can't tax people extra because they are gay, you can't tax them extra because they are fat, you can't tax them extra cause they sleep around.

Off course the state has the right to ask those who caused the child to come into being to help support it, virtually every society in history has done this

Virtually every society in history has not had emancipated woman, or access to cheap and easy abortion procedures. And even then, you are vastly overstating the degrees to which states historically have mandated support for 'bastard' children.

The child support system is the product of an antiquated era in which women were prevented, explicitly and culturally, from getting jobs that would allow them to support their children. It made sense that if men were going to hog all the jobs, they should be the first ones society looked to for child support. The premise of that system is no longer operable and thus, with the passage of that era, the child support system needs to be updated. It's really that simple.

Sexual liberation is not free, and women don't share enough in its costs. The arguments supporting that assertion are impregnable.

Can someone on the "poor men" side please detail out what they want, the full structure that makes it fair for all parties involved (Mother, Father, Child, taxpayers)?

This is a loaded question since you have made it clear numerous times that what you think is fair to the child and mother is something totally different than what the other side thinks is fair. All this is is a question to restart the same argument you've already had. Either that or you simply want to read "penis-in-vagina sex" a few more times.

In later shorts, both Butch and Waldo would be portrayed as Alfalfa's main rivals in his pursuit of Darla's affections. Other popular elements in these mid-to-late 1930s shorts include the "He-Man Woman Haters Club" from Hearts Are Thumps and Mail and Female (both 1937), the Laurel and Hardy-ish interaction between Alfalfa and Spanky, and the comic tag-along team of Porky and Buckwheat.

In later shorts, both Butch and Waldo would be portrayed as Alfalfa's main rivals in his pursuit of Darla's affections. Other popular elements in these mid-to-late 1930s shorts include the "He-Man Woman Haters Club" from Hearts Are Thumps and Mail and Female (both 1937), the Laurel and Hardy-ish interaction between Alfalfa and Spanky, and the comic tag-along team of Porky and Buckwheat.

Virtually every society, until now, has not granted women the same rights as men, that's true. You might, just as a mere thought experiment, try to consider why that would be so. You might also try to understand that in other ways those same societies did not expect of women what they expected of males. This idea that men have had a free ride through history (and pre-history) on the backs of women is absurd and insulting. Until we are ready to acknowledge the state of affairs as to the sexes as it has been for millennia , and address rights and responsibilities in terms that have those basics in mind, we are not being honest. We are engaging in rank ideological thinking, if not demagoguery.

Morty gives us a long laundry list of ways in which men are disadvantaged, most of which are irrefutable** but also irrelevant WRT the question of responsibility for child support. OTOH he's right in saying that to throw around "oppressed" as a one-size-fits-all description of women's status, at least in western democracies, is a gross overgeneralization*** that sheds more heat than light on the specific topic that's been discussed here.

The issue of responsibility for little bastards is a question unto itself, and I honestly can't think of any general rule that would address the real needs of the child in all cases. But a few points are worth making.

---The decision to bear or not the child should be the woman's alone. When the art of uterus transplants is perfected and men can bear children, I can see changing my opinion on this. And forced abortions are no less horrific here than they are in China or India.

---The division of child support should be specifically related to each parent's financial status, and let the chips fall as they may. No child should be handicapped by arbitrary abstract principles favoring either the man or the woman. If a 21 year old millionairess gets knocked up by the French Fry saltshaker at McDonald's, the relative contributions to that child's upbringing shouldn't be governed by the case of a Microsoft CEO who knocks up his maid.

---In custody cases, any non-abusive non-custodial parent who contributes the mandated amount of child support should be allowed regular visitation, at least up to a certain point of a child's age. After a certain point of maturity, the child should have the right to exercise a veto. This should apply no matter which parent was granted custody.

---Also in custody cases, preference should be given to the parent who's best able to provide emotional support for the child in his early years. This would tend to favor the mother, but not in all cases by any means, and the decision shouldn't be made reflexively or automatically.

**Though I'm surprised he's not aware of the many "girl tramps" of the Depression era who hopped on boxcars with the best of them. In fact one of the best Warner Brothers features of that era prominently featured one of those girls in the plot.

***Though in China, India and most of the Islamic world, "oppressed" would be an understatement.

Non-discriminatory is fairly simple. You can't tax people based on demographics or life choices.

Life choices? Really, that is what you are going with? A career is a life choice, including how many hours one works. Mode of transport is a life choice. Renting or buying a house is a life choice - all of those things result in different monetary consequences. As does the life choice of having unprotected sex, when the result is a child. We pay for all are life choices every day in real terms - some mandated by the government some not - you are being very convienient in you implementation.

Virtually every society in history has not had emancipated woman, or access to cheap and easy abortion procedures. And even then, you are vastly overstating the degrees to which states historically have mandated support for 'bastard' children.

You are vastly underrating how great the current system is for men relative to past societies. Premarital sex is OK, with really simple and cheap measures it is basically consequence free, and if something does happen you don't have to marry and parent the child forever (at gunpoint! much like taxation is today). Men get a great deal, contribute much less to creating a child than the woman and still get custody, and yet you whine about some money when the alternative is either the child you are partly responsbile for goign without or sponging off society because you are not willing to do what is right.

The child support system is the product of an antiquated era in which women were prevented, explicitly and culturally, from getting jobs that would allow them to support their children. It made sense that if men were going to hog all the jobs, they should be the first ones society looked to for child support. The premise of that system is no longer operable and thus, with the passage of that era, the child support system needs to be updated. It's really that simple.

And still you want to punish the children because of a decision the mother makes. And by the way neither pay nor the job market are actually equal in America, but in any event soceity looks to both the mothe and father to support the child because they gave the child life.

Sexual liberation is not free, and women don't share enough in its costs. The arguments supporting that assertion are impregnable.

Again even if there is unfair sharing of costs between mother and father (both ways, because women bear much more of the cost in having the child), the welfare of the child take primacy over that of either the mother or father, in this society and every other. Ignoring that is howling at the moon.

Put simply: No one cares about your "plight" because we care more about the children, especially since it was your choice intitially which put you in this position.

Could you please explain to me the moral framework where a person of any sex is required to hold responsibility for an action she or he did not decide?

I personally don't underestand how you can consider sexual intercourse - that which an absolute result of, no matter what you parse, is procreation - something that a man didn't decide to do. I know, I know, Roe has decided this and therefore that is thus. I understand your reasoning, but I simply don't agree it follows.

EDIT: So I take that back, I guess I do understand, I simply disagree with your line of reasoning.

I agree with #693, which as it should focused on what matters. Starting with the child as central figure is the moral thing to do, since the child is (obviously) not an adult and did not consent to any of this. Everyone else is and did.

It takes some nerve, even gall, to twist the constructs of a system that almost wholely is set up to benefit and cater to the female sex in such a way as to make it seem antagonistic to that sex.

The entire panoply of family law (divorce, property settlement, custody, support, alimony) is very much weighted in the female's favor.

For the most part, women don't pay child support, even when they don't have custody, to nearly the extent men do. This means that men are stuck trying to support two families. Of course, that means that some men don't pay or don't pay all they owe.

This isn't even getting into how the computations for child support can be really outlandish.

Judges tend to take their decrees as Mosaic law. If a guy becomes unable to pay (lost of job, sickness, new baby in other family, etc.), the judge can get high-handed. I have known them to simply issue a pay up or else go to jail (as if that will generate income).

Let's understand, too, that most of that unpaid child support is because it can't be paid and will never be paid because those people just ####### don't have the money. It's like making up numbers. We're not talking about people who have a lot to begin with or who have prospects. There's a whole underclass that can barely make ends meet, if they can make ends meet, that live day by day on the edge, and any added financial burden puts them over that edge. This isn't even considering the ever-increasing number of children that are born out of wedlock, which makes it even harder and more expensive to attempt to recover without great expense. (What's Homer Simpson's horoscope: today will be just like yesterday; oh, it just gets worse.) It just gets worse because the underlying situations that create the problem are getting worse. We, and our institutions, can righteously maintain that these men (men!) must pay, but you can't get blood out of a stone. You can say it; that doesn't create the wherewithal.

Really poor start here. This is not the argument at hand. This is just an herring thrown in to turn the moral argument into emotional broadside.

Besides all this lovely posturing about how terrible it is that men have to pay child support at all (as if there is a child support fairy that shows up after nine months of pregnancy, instead of a long, annoying process that often leaves mothers unpaid for years), let's insert some actual fact into the discussion:

There is about $100 billion dollars of unpaid child support. Almost half of it is owed to taxpayers. (Turns out we already are collectively raising kids!)

We are not discussing the status quo ante. We are discussing what a just future state might be.

82% of primary custodians are women. 1 in 4 children are born today to single mothers. In some communities, that number is almost two in three. That's a lot of poor, beknighted men, selflessly having responsible sexual relationships but being kept down by the evil childcare gestapo.

The fact that most primary custodians are women has as much to do with sexism as anything else. There are many, many cases where the best interest of the child, in today's system, would be served by having the father be primary custodian, but the family court system has this default notion that a "child needs to be with its mother." Because, you know, woman-baby magic or something. The 82% stat is irrelevant to the conversation to date.

The 1 in 4 single mother stats are also a holdover of the current system, which has weird incentives on both sides of the equation.

Also, the most galling discussion in this thread is about how "easy" abortion is, like it's some sort of "get out jail free card" that ladies get to pull for some of that sexy liberation. You know what's liberating? Not having to spend a few hundred dollars to terminate a pregnancy. Never getting pregnant is liberating. An abortion isn't "liberating". It is a CHOICE.

I've already stipulated that the male sex partner would be required to assist in funding and providing termination of any unwanted pregnancy. That's not the question. The question is why a man should have to support a child he did not wish to have. In a world where we accept that termination of pregnancy is morally and socially acceptable (until the magic "viability" moment), and that the decision to terminate rests solely with the woman (her body, her decision), then we live in a world where the moral responsibility to carry a pregnancy to term is held universally by the woman who chose to do so. It is a CHOICE, and the person who made the CHOICE is responsible for the outcomes of that CHOICE.

We have a whole group of people who want to make the preventative part (birth control) hard to get, let alone abortion on demand!

Who are these people? I have stipulated that the perfect case would be universal, no-cost access to morning after pills. Please debate the points on the screen, not some nefarious other possible argument that Paul Broun might be thinking about instead.

There are a lot of problems with how child support is structured. There are problems with men who are trapped into financial arrangements for a quarter century. But having a kid and raising alone is not a joyride. I feel like this discussion has decided that being a single mom is really ####### awesome,

There's nothing in the debate on these pages that would suggest this.

And let's not even get into the approximately 30,000 rape pregnancies that happen each year. The idea that even one sick ###### could go around using rape that leaves no marks and little evidence, and then walk away from the pregnancy because Freedom! is unbelievably awful. And the worst part is that it could absolutely happen.

You're right. Let's not get into "rape pregnancies" because no one here is arguing that rape shouldn't be prevented universally and punished in the world. Let's stick to what's being suggested and argued instead. That way we don't have to pretend that anyone here is defending rape in any way whatsoever.

Also, the next person to equate rape to paying a check: I will find you and it will not be pretty.

And by the way, I don't think it is a decision the woman makes which causes the father to have to pay, in fact it is the reverse. The woman is making a decision (an abortion) to undergo a medical procedure whic eliminates the established male's responsibilty towards the child.

In other words some of you are arguing that because the woman does not do you a favor and have a medical procedure (releasing you from your responsbility you incurred through your choice) then you should not have to support your child.

The lesson here is don't go through life expecting others to have medical procedures which do you a favor. Own your own decisions and expect to have control over only those things you can control.

Maybe, but the point is that the decision is biased if the woman has a 21-year claim on the father's earnings. It's self-evidently grossly unfair to give the man no say during the window of potential abortion, and then garnishing his wages based on a decision in which he had no input. Sorry, the mere fact that he engaged in PIVS does not change this principle, if for no other reason that the woman also engaged in PIVS.

The answer is some kind of enforceable pre-intercourse agreement in which the man and woman can have the post-f$ck world governed by the same rules that would govern if she'd been anonymously artifically inseminated. The male engaging in PIVS is morally no different than the male who donates sperm in exchange for a check. And if the woman isn't entitled to a check from the sperm donor, she shouldn't necessarily be entitled to a check because she got pregnant through carnal knowledge.

I personally don't underestand how you can consider sexual intercourse - that which an absolute result of, no matter what you parse, is procreation - something that a man didn't decide to do.

The woman decided to do it, too. Denying that denies her agency, free will, and equality. It represents a paternalistic and antiquated notion of female sexuality.